You are here

6. Balanced Realism

Reasoning occurs in the relationship of abstract concepts, not in the relationship of symbols, images or sensations.

It is not the brain that thinks or reasons. It is the person who does the thinking, it is the person who does the reasoning.

Basic

For our reasoning to be sound enough to suit pressing needs, we must not only adequately utilize balanced realism, but we must do so in a manner that is sufficiently honest for the occasion.

For reason to be sound, we do not have to be perfect but we mustbe good enough. If we had to be perfect, then reasoning would be of no value to humanity as such because none of us is perfect. Only God, if there is a God, is perfect.If we did not have to be good enough, then there would be no significant difference between a good reason and a poor excuse.

Maritain"Generally speaking, the extension and comprehension of concepts are in inverse ratio to each other." B50p22, "It is important that the notion of extension and comprehension be firmly established from the very beginning for any taint of nominalism will prevent it from being rightly understood. In nominalim the concept has no reality other than that of the individuals which it represents."B50p22

example: A position can be an intellectual stance as well as a physical stance. What is your position on the issue: What was his position when he heard the news? Was he standing or sitting?

2008aug10 Bill pointed out this equation in his physics book [Feynman] describing the behavior of electrons [particles] that behave like a wave. Bill talked about Probability Theory. This is not new to me because Bill has pointed this out before several times and I have thought a lot along these lines. "Early 20th cent. experimental evidence suggested that atomic particles were also wave-like in nature. Electrons were found to give diffraction patterns when passed through a double slit in a similar way to light waves. Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that a wave equation could explain the behaviour of atomic particles. After much debate, the wave function is now accepted to be a probability distribution. The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position."

[Gin note 2008sep: We humans cannot think without using our brain which is a physiological organ. Does this establish that human thought is nothing but a physiological manifestation, such as a probability distribution of a wave function? Many (inclucing me) answer 'no'. However, the work of modern physicists, biologists, chemists and astronomers suggests that the Physical Aspect of our thinking is far more integrated with our Intellectual Reasoning than most philosophers have appreciated in the past. Plusroot Theory supports Balanced Realism, a theory that emphasizes the integral importance and essential goodness of BOTH the physical and intellectual aspects of human thought. Balanced Realism defends BOTH the reality of Becoming and the reality of Being. Plato, as I read him, held that the divine goodness of intellectual thinking implies that there was something seriously inferior, even 'bad', about physical-material thinking including the imagination. I emphatically disagree with this aspect of Plato (if that is what he really meant). My reading of Aristotle leads me to presume that Aristotle appreciated BOTH even though in the Aristotelian writings we now have, he does not articulate the difference in a neat manner. Balanced Realism maintains that we humans have the ability to study about the difference between intellectual and physical and develop knowledge about BOTH. ]

Adam Smith at one place at least preferred sentiment to syllogism. In several places he plays dizzy dialectical games with his duplicitous terminology and portentous presumptions. He is not alone.

In his rejection of syllogism, Smith projects the implication that we have to choose between 'syllogism' and 'sentiment'. Balanced realism see both syllogism and sentiment as compliments as long as syllogistic thinking is used in a sound rational manner.s Total Oppositional Monism

When phantasmagoric deductions are presented as if they were sound syllogistic conclusions, syllogistic theory is abused. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not the fault of the victim.

Richard Feynman, (1918-1988) "We have a way of checking whether an idea is correct or not that has nothing to do with where it came from. We simply test it against observation. So in science we are not interested in where an idea comes from." R547p21[Gin note – This is well and good as long as the scientific method of testing does not become infected with serious root errors. Once serious root errors seep into the scientific method, the only conscious way to correct the errors is to honestly learn what needs knowing about where ideas come from and what they are. Feynman is surfing on discoveries made by the classical scholastics. The classical scholastics deserve recognition for their contribution. ]

Hegel, The State, World Spirit,

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State...for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144) [Gin. Hegel did not invent this idea. He was expressing a point of view that was prevalent in many ruling circles at the time, especially in Germanic nations. ]

Balanced Realism; short review of gin theory, [2009dec, 2010apr09 GTJ

See ArnauldQuotes on Concept of God B46p54 and my comments, Imagination and Intellect, etc. ]

Note: our understanding of the relation between the physical and intellectual must keep pace with modern discoveries or else it will be deemed irrelevant. For some reason that I can't figure, the people who should be doing this very important work, threw in the towel. There are a few weak efforts, but what goes on has become so technicalized that is hidden from public view. Hopefully good science is being done somewhere, but I can't find it. If I had time to read all of the journals coming out of Notre Dame and other Catholic institutions, I sure I would find some good stuff. However it is not getting into mainstream discourse sufficiently to make a noticeable impact. We should hear trumpets blowing in defense of unchanging, impartial Truth and how unchanging Truth relates to the limits of human knowledge, which is continually changing. We should have article after article showing how the syllogism is the key to understanding the relationship between the majesty of Truth and the development of human reason. Classically the middle term is 'a reason' and learning to reason well means learning to properly distribute our middle terms. God has given us the gift of reason. We honor God when we make the effort it takes to learn to reason well.

This is one of the basic assumptions of the US Founders although they did not articulate it especially well. There is no treatise I can find by any US Founder defending this point of view in so many words. But it is there in various remarks and implications. It is so important that it is the ruling aspect of the original American Dream.

This basic idea was still going strong when I was a young girl growing up in a small town in northern Wyoming. On looking back, I may have been in on the last tail as the First American Dream was being replaced by The New Government Social Salvation Dream.

[note 2010apr. Joe and I watched a black and white Sergeant York played by Gary Cooper. His mother's short blessing before their meal ended with 'Lord keep us from being beholden to anyone' (Slightly paraphrased). That attitude was palpable where I grew up. The amazing thing is how strong a community can become when people share this attitude. Perhaps it is because people imbued with the dedication to independence are trustworthy. In such a society there is no need to lock doors. You can leave your key in the car and shop without mirrors on the wall. If you loose a glove, someone in town will find it and return it to you. You can count on others to not only do their share, but more than their share. If someone is in serious need, neighbors find ways to help without harming the dignity of the person needing help. Once when I was about six, I left my little purse on the street car in Denver. It had a hanky and some coins and couple things my 6 year self thought was important. My mother called the lost and found department. Someone had turned it in. We went down and retrieved it. I was happy to have it back. There were lots of thank yous but no money changed hands. It was the way most people did things in those days. It was not just small town morality. It was also there in the big city of Denver. And this attitude stills lives on in many places today – but not as much as it used to be. It is not a perfect system.

There was a lot of this same attitude in the Black community, too, until the New Brand Mentality began to take hold.

The enormous self-independent community spirit that used to be characteristic of the USA is fading fast. More and more people look to the Government for hope and salvation and less and less to their fierce independence and their ability to choose their own religion.

One of the points that has gotten lost is relationship between individual independence and strong community cooperation. Instead of celebrating this powerful relationship I see articles suggesting that 'independence' and 'community' are contentious opposites in a constant state of conflict. This is a very serious mistake. Honest independence and genuine community cooperation are complements and reinforce each other.

Reasoning occurs in the relationship of concepts as joined in propositions. In order to consciously consider a concept we humans must conjoin the concept we comprehend with a physical entity, usually a word. This process has both physical and intellectual aspects. Understanding the process requires understanding both aspects and developing some notion of how they work together. This process occurs whether we understand it or not. Denying it does not make it go away. Denying impartial truth does not make impartial truth vanish. It is still there.

In developing rationality, people get a glimmering of understanding in subliminal levels of thinking and usually in liminal levels also. Bringing consciousness of this balanced operation into critical awareness is fraught with confusion because so often the core terminology we need is loaded with cancel out interpretations.

Intellectual: The intellectual aspect of our thinking involves abstractions, comprehensions, meanings, understanding, operations that are not measurable with physical instruments. That is to say, they cannot be quantified. They do not weigh anything so they cannot be weighed. Normal function people do this whether they are critically conscious of the process or not.

Example: Salt is something we can taste, we can see. Sodium chloride, NaCl can be measured down to minute quantities. Some animals instinctively seek salt and will travel great distances to get the salt they need. Our human concept of salt is different than a salt crystal. The salt crystal can be measured with physical instruments. We can experience salt both physically and intellectually. We can physically image and taste salt crystals. If we have a sore and put salt on it, we can feel the sting. We can imagine and measure the physical aspects of salt. We cannot imagine or measure the concept "salt". We comprehend the concept. Comprehension is something that we can studying and know intellectually. We can define the word 'salt'. The definition helps more clearly understand the concept. The concept applies to all salt now, then and in the future. We can have discussions about whether or not salt exists on other planets in the universe.

Our human intellectual thinking occurs in different depths of awareness.

In human thinking the Imagination and the Intellect work hand in hand. Our imagination operates extensionally while our Intellect operates intensionally. Intensionally we can consider the concepts "quantity" and "quality"

That which is extensional is in the realm of measurement. It potentially, at least, can be measured by the physical instrument. It is also the realm of coming to be and passing away. It is continuously changing.

That which is intensional is in the realm of meaning, comprehension and understanding. It is in the realm of being. It simply is.

Speaking from an impositional point of view, words, as symbols, are extensional. We can hear them spoken. We can see them written. We can touch them in brail. We can use smells as symbols. [phrenoms, perfume] We can use taste as symbols. We can imagine words in our imagination. We use mental words when we 'talk to our self.'

The concept is a meaning that we understand. A concept is a meaning we associate with a symbol.

We make our own concepts by abstracting them from images in our mind.

Each person does their own abstracting. I cannot abstract your thoughts for you. You cannot abstract my thoughts for me. It is up to me to abstract my own thoughts. It is up to you to abstract your own thoughts.

Note: the word 'abstract' as currently used contains a collage of conflicting connotations. Some interpretation actually contradict others. Radical social managers take advantage of confusions of this type to wiggle themselves into positions of authority. Many of us do this sub-consciously because we have discovered that playing the 'illusion game' often works to our temporary advantage.

The symbol is not the concept but the symbol is a necessary adjunct that we humans must use to be consciously aware of concepts in our own mind. We cannot talk without using symbols, especially words. We must use symbols to communicate our ideas with others. I repeat. The symbol is not the concept but we must use the symbol to consciously contemplate ideas and talk about concept.

Concepts we entertain in subliminal areas of our thinking are subliminal. We deduce the existence of subliminal thinking from introspective examination of our thought processes. After we listen to others and read what others have to say about their thinking process and use this knowledge to help us examine our own thinking processes, we can make a strong conscious rational argument that subliminal thinking is an important part of human thought processes, including our own. Thomas Aquinas was working with this idea when he talked about knowledge through conaturality [B388p22f, Maritain1942]

If this is so, they it would follow that we humans abstract many intellectual thoughts that we do not consciously appreciate. I think there is good evidence that this is the case. We think many thoughts subliminally below levels of conscious appreciation. There is more to our soul than that of which we are directly conscious.

Consciousness is obviously connected with physiological factors. Consider the process of going to sleep. As we go to sleep, we are no longer awake. When we wake up, we are again awake and conscious of what is going on. This is a physiological process. We sometimes remember dreams that we had while we were asleep. In my case, these dreams are often vivid, but then I quickly forget them. A few dreams still stay with me in my awake mind. But what about the ones I forgot? I clearly remember having had dreams that now I can no longer recollect. This knowledge I place in the realm of resolute certainty hard fact based on experience. I am resolutely certain this is true because of direct experience although there is no way I can prove it.

Modern psychologists have fascinating things to say about unconscious states of thinking. But modern psychologists are not the first to be intrigued with 'alternative' states of thinking. The 'dream world' has intrigued people throughout history.

The dream state is a strong indication that much goes on in our mind of which we are not conscious.

What about anesthesia? What about being knocked unconscious?

"Imagination depends ... on ... movement in some part of the organic body." [B46p54 Arnauld]

I argue that from Plato/Aristotle/Cohorts till now there has been a prominent but not always dominant partially articulated and half-way understood balanced realism that is fundament to the foundations of Western Civilization. It is preserved in historical writing in bits and dabs. The above quote from Arnauld is an example of what I mean.

I maintain that critical discussions about the way symbols and ideas work together with each other is exceedingly difficult to articulate in exact language but we do manage to communicate these thoughts to some degree. We learn much 'epistemology from our language. I argue that The English Language has a more noticeable development of logical operators than most languages.

All Languages Have a special wisdom that they convey.

To know how to deal with Arabic people we need to appreciate the wisdom conveyed through their language. We also need to appreciate the limitation their language imposes upon them.

We need to do the same for us who speak English language.

For negotiation quality to be high in communication with people of other languages and cultures, we would benefit by learning to adequately address these distinctions. Each language and culture has certain advantages others do not have. At the same time each language and culture has certain disadvantage that are theirs alone. People educated from an Affirmative Rational point of view know this and make adjustments accordingly. This is often included in what we mean by "giving one another the benefit of the doubt." However, when we are dealing with mentalities driven by unquestioning absolute totalitarian dedication, we cannot hope to negotiate. People of this mentality have chosen the realm of Militant Totalitarian allegiance. It is close to impossible to engage in genuine negotiation with people thus committed. Instead of negotiation, totalitarian militants must be contained by physical force of some type. Individuals can often be reached, but when Totalitarian Group Dedication sets in, individuals become puppets.

In conducting negotiation, we MUST have ways to determine the cognitive realm of those in the negotiation.

BIG*** Problem [2009nov21]

In writing about the simple rational problems I wish to discuss, there are dozens of places where I should begin. Each beginning place is simple enough, but it presupposes the other beginning places are well understood.

In developing understanding of human rationality, everything we wish to say presupposes all the basic requirements that need to be explained in order to explain any question that arises.

As far as I can tell, in order to be persuasive in discussing rational problems, I should begin in a different way for each potential reader. My experience to date leads to suspect that each inquiring person is deeply bother by their own questions. Different people are bothered by different questions I need to begin a different way for each person. Anything else is not going to grab their attention.

I am stuck with the problem that, wherever I start, I will be communicating with only one person. Others will not be interested because I don't appear to be dealing with problems that bother them.

BIG*** Problem [2009nov21]

There is a Big difference between First Intensional Problems and Root Problems that we must address in some manner if are to consciously, intelligently, and rationally address the issues that break down decency in society.

If we do not consciously, intelligently and rationally address the deep root problems that undermine decency and civil discourse in our society, then we are left with nothing but positional expediency to guide ultimate decisions in public affairs. Positional expediency has not inherent unity. One person's position will conflict with another's. To defend their personal position people will form into groups with leaders. These groups will be in absolute conflict with each other because they eschew the unifying value of Impartial Truth and Right Reason. Instead of a society united by affirmative rationally the create a world driven by totalitarian antithetical conflict. In this mentality winning is everything.

Living by antithetical conflict that blows with the wind and living a rational life guided by truth and sound reason are not the same thing.

Thought

Much evidence exists to suggest that we humans do not need self-conscious knowledge of Truth or even the use of reason in order to survive as a pure animal species. If we could eliminate our ability to understand,figure, predict and control the outcome we might still survive as do apes. We inherit strong instincts and a natural ability to imitate and develop the conditioned reflexes we need to endure as do other animals. With our large brain we have a behavioral edge.

Question: Rational Animal

Are we rational animals in the classical tradition or are we merely animal animals in the modern total material rendition of reality.

If we are rational animals, what do we mean by rational?

Is there a significant difference between the rational aspect of our nature and the animal aspect?

If we are not rational creatures, what are we?

Are any of the above questions relevant for educators? Are they relevant politically?

\Brain, Snowflakes,

Both intellectual talents and physiological abilities are exceedingly important and both are real. The physical is physiologically real. The intellectual is intellectually real.

The objections of Negative Absolutists against the basic laws of thought assume that only physiological entities are real. Negative Absolutists are correct in pointing out that physiological events are not identical. No two physical snowflakes are absolutely identical. However our concept of a snowflake is a different issue. In normal discourse, people can talk about snowflakes and understand each other. What is it that all snowflakes have in common? We abstract the concept or the meaning and symbolize the concept with a word. Individual snowflakes are physical realities. Word we use are physical realities. The concept is an intellectual reality. The concept is real but we cannot imagine the concept. We can imagine images.

Snowflake is sometimes used as a name for a white kitten. It is a cute name.

Gin: Reasoning occurs in the relationship of concepts, not in the relationship of words.

However, words as symbols are necessary for us to become consciously aware of the concepts under consideration.

It is part of our human nature that: to consciously consider a concept we must conjoin the abstracted concept we comprehend in our intellect with a physical symbol we imagine in our imagination.

In human thinking people's Imagination and Intellect work hand in hand. Our imaginationdf is extensional while our Intellectdf is intensional.

That which is extensional is measurable. That which is extensional, at least potentially, can be measured by a physical instrument. That which is extensional is continuously changing. It is in the realm of coming to be and passing away. It is active.

That which is intensional is in meaningful. It can be comprehended and understood by a an individual with the capacity to comprehend and understand. It is in the realm of being. It simply is.

Words that we use as symbols are extensional. We can hear them spoken. We can see them written. We can touch them in brail. We can use smells as symbols. We can use taste as symbols. We can imagine them in our imagination. We use words when we 'talk to our self.'

The concept is an idea that we understand. The concept is the meaning we associate with the symbol

We make our own concepts by abstracting them from images in our mind.

Each person does their own abstracting. I cannot abstract your thoughts for you. You cannot abstract my thoughts for me. It is up to me to abstract my own thoughts. It is up to you to abstract your own thoughts.

The symbol is not the concept but the symbol is a necessary adjunct that humans must use to be consciously aware of concept in question. We cannot talk without using symbols. We must use symbols to communicate our ideas with others.

If this is so, they it would follow that we humans most likely abstract many intellectual thoughts that we do not consciously appreciate. I think there is good evidence that this is the case. We think many thoughts subliminally below levels of conscious appreciation. There is more to our soul that that of which we are directly conscious.

Consciousness is obviously connected with physiological factors. Consider the process of going to sleep. As we go to sleep, we lose consciousness. When we wake up, we are again conscious of what is going on. This is a physiological process. We sometimes remember dreams that we had while we were asleep. In my case, these dreams are often vivid, but then I quickly forget them. A few dreams still stay with me in my conscious, awake mind. But what about the ones I forgot? I clearly remember having had dreams that now I can no longer recollect. This knowledge I place in the realm of hard fact.

Modern psychologists have fascinating things to say about unconscious states of thinking. But modern psychologists are not the first to be intrigued with 'alternative' states of thinking. The 'dream world' has intrigued people throughout history.

The dream state is a strong indication that much goes on in our mind of which we are not conscious.

What about anesthesia? What about being knocked unconscious?

"Imagination depends ... on ... movement in some part of the organic body." [B46p54]

I argue that from Plato/Aristotle/Cohorts till now there has been a prominent but not always dominant partially articulated and half-way understood balanced realism that is fundament to the foundations of Western Civilization. It is preserved in historical writing in bits and dabs. The above quote from Arnauld is an example of what I mean.

I maintain that critical discussions about the way symbols and ideas work together with each other is exceedingly difficult to articulate in exact language but we do manage to communicate these thoughts to some degree. We learn much 'epistemology from our language. I argue that The English Language has a more noticeable development of logical operators than most languages.

All Languages Have a special wisdom that they convey.

To know how to deal with Arabic people we need to appreciate the wisdom conveyed through their language. We also need to appreciate the limitation their language imposes upon them.

We need to do the same for us who speak English language.

For negotiation quality to be high in communication with people of other languages and cultures, we would benefit by learning to adequately address these distinctions. Each language and culture has certain advantages other do not have. At the same time each language and culture has certain disadvantage that are theirs alone. People educated from an Affirmative Rational point of view know this and make adjustments accordingly. This is often included in what we mean by "giving one another the benefit of the doubt." However, when we are dealing with mentalities driven by unquestionable absolute totalitarian dedication, we cannot hope to negotiate. People of this mentality have chosen the realm of Militant Totalitarian do-or-die allegiance. It is impossible to engage in genuine negotiation with people thus committed. Instead of negotiation, totalitarian militants must be contained by physical force of some type.

In conducting negotiation, we MUST have ways to determine the cognitive realm of those in the negotiation.

QUOTES

Shakespeare

“Imagination bodies forth the forms of things unknown” (Shakespeare). [Middle English bodi, from Old English bodig.] [99dic 'body' ]

Maritain"Generally speaking, the extension and comprehension of concepts are in inverse ratio to each other." B50p22, "It is important that the notion of extension and comprehension be firmly established from the very beginning for any taint of nominalism will prevent it from being rightly understood. In nominalim the concept has no reality other than that of the individuals which it represents."B50p22

example: A position can be an intellectual stance as well as a physical stance. What is your position on the issue: What was his position when he heard the news? Was he standing or sitting?

LINCOLN, Find Source

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

... Abraham Lincoln

Fredrick Turner [99dic 'content']

“The brain is hungry not for method but for content, especially content which contains generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit” (Frederick Turner).

Plutarch, Balanced Realism [\BalancedRealism...vvv, \Terminology]

-the Greeks very properly call manners xxxx (custom); for they are nothing else, in short, but certain qualities of the irrational and brutal part of the mind, and hence by them are so named, in that this brutal and irrational part of the mind being formed and moulded by right reason, by long custom and use (which they call xxxx), has these qualities or differences stamped upon it. Not that reason so much as attempts to eradicate our passions and affections, which is neither possible nor expedient, but only to keep them within due bounds, reduce them into good order, and so direct them to a good end; and thus to generate moral virtue, consisting not in a kind of insensibility, or total freedom from passions, but in the well-ordering our passions and keeping them within measure, which she effects by wisdom and prudence, bringing the faculties of that part of the soul where our affections and appetite are seated to a good habit. [Plutarch/MoralVirtue/p233: C165/R472]

Reality: Reality =df that which exists. The term Reality includes both Intellectual Reality and Physiological Reality. Intellectual Reality includes Impartial Truth and Spiritual Activity. [Gin note: in stipulating this definitions I am departing somewhat from older philosophic traditions that view Pure Being as totally unchanging. This definition blends the Devine reliability of God's Truth with the divine activity of God creative powers with the divine fire of his of love. We humans can comprehend a little the wonder of Gods Divine activity but we cannot imagine it. We can comprehend bits of Divine Truth but not the whole of it

Physical and Intellectual Realms. There exists a real, humanly knowable, distinction between the Physiological Realm Of Reality* and the Intellectual Realm Of Reality*

Both Realms are Intrinsically Good: Both the physiological realm of reality and the intellectual realm of reality are intrinsically good.

A real distinction between the physiological and the intellectual exists whether we acknowledge it or not.

Adequately using the distinction between Being* and Becoming* is a prerequisite of sound rational thinking and high quality negotiation and productive communication in human civilization.

For our reasoning to be sound enough to suit pressing needs, we must not only adequately acknowledge balanced realism, but we must do so in a manner that is sufficiently honest for the occasion. For reason to be sound, we do not have to be perfect but we mustbe good enough. If we had to be perfect, then reasoning would be of no value to humanity as such because none of us is perfect. Only God, if there is a God, is perfect.

Human Limits. Human Knowledge is inherently limited. We humans have intellectual limitations that make it impossible to absolutely understand the full extension and intension of reality.To appreciate Tenet 1, it is important to recognize the terms 'adequate' and 'sufficient' in Tenet 1.1 and Tenet 1.2. We can sufficiently understand Balanced Realism to meet the needs of decency but to expect an absolute comprehension of everything is out side the realm of humans are capable of doing.

Intellectual Abstraction [\BalancedRealism...vvv, \Terminology]

Human Intellectual Abstraction =df a process where a person notes similarities and/or differences in objects-items-events-percepts, phantasms and, from this observation, abstracts a concept which he or she understands to some degree. That is to say the concept has a meaning for the individual. This is something that a person does that presuppose an adequately functioning physiological brain. When people use their intellect to abstract a concept, they step into the realm of comprehension.

Experience: [Egloss]

The term experience is exceedingly ambiguous.

Experience:Experience =+df felt contact with reality. It is the raw material required in developing empirical knowledge. Expedience includes both what happens to us and what we do. Abstracting a concept is something we do that is also an experience. Understanding is something we do and it is also an experience. Making a judgment is something we do that is also an experience. Reasoning is something that we do that is also an experience. Choosing values is something we do that is an experience. I can go on and on. Everything that we do in any level of awareness is an experience. Experience includes what happens to us and what we do.

Experiment =+df a logically controlled experience in which we critically participate in a designed event and record our interpretation in a discrete manner so others can repeat it and double check results.

Cultivated commonsense is ordinary commonsense raised to a level of polished skill through education both formal and informal. Cultivated commonsense is educated liminal acumen. It is affirmative reasoning in normal workaday thinking that is well developed and applied with mature responsibility. We cultivate commonsense through experience, education, and personal effort. [D6 ComSen 01mar30]

Cultivating commonsense presupposes experience. Experience* is felt contact with reality. It is the raw material we use in developing knowledge. An experiment is an intellectually controlled experience in which we consciously participate in a designed event. An experiment is in the critical mode. An experience is personally encountered and lived through. [2001Feb from Web D06, Commonsense]

Experience is felt contact with reality.Experience is both that which happens to us and our on-going response to such happenings.That which we do is a part of our experience as well as that which we feel.Theoretical Experience involves the thinking we do about generalities.Practical Experience involves applying generalities to actual conditions separate from thought.Developing Negotiation Quality requires practical experience.This implies the ability to put Theory into Practice.Here again, root errors cause problems.Some of the most devastating minus elements that hinder the development of Negotiation Quality are concerned with the way Theory is applied to Practice.An inability to honestly apply Theory to Practice often causes Negotiations to fail.See \Experience,\Negotiation;

Trivium B517

Trivium Axiom: There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses except the intellect itself. [B517p15] [Gin 2008may23. By senses she means both external and internal senses as she defines the terms. ]

"Essence is that which makes a being what it is and without which it would not be the kind of being it is."[B517p11]

From the phantasms in the imagination, the intellect abstracts that which is common and necessary to all the phantasms of similar objects (for example, trees or chairs); this is the essence (that which makes a tree to be a tree, or that which make a chair to be a chair). The intellectual apprehension of this essence is the general or universal, concept (of a tree or a chair). [B517p15]

Empirical: Empirical means founded on experience. Since only individuals exist, our experience is directly concerned with them. Throughout this book, the word empirical is used with reference to our knowledge of individuals. [B517p13]

Intellect ; [ \GTJ2008jun07]

At first, for each person, there is nothing in the intellect except the intellect itself.

Intellectually learning begins with experience.

Experience is felt contact with reality.

From conception to birth, a plethora of interconnections are programmed into the operations of our senses, our nerves, our hormones, our brains. All of this development forms our first experiences. These experiences occur whether we are conscious of them or not.

There are different types of consciousness. Dogs, cats, horse, birds and mice all have consciousness. They sleep, just as we humans sleep. There is much evidence that dogs have dreams. Waking up a dog is very similar to waking up children. This type of consciousness is shared through most of the animal kingdom. There is no evidence to indicate that vegetables share in this animal consciousness. There are areas in between that pose problems. What about mosquitoes? Hiking a trail in the mountains in the summer, it is not unusual to encounter a swarm of mosquitoes. They behave almost as if they were one creature. Biologists study this phenomena and speculate. All but the most stoic hiker launches a merciless execution program feeling a certain satisfaction with each successful slap. How did I get on this subject?

Science of the Intellect [copy: duplicate] [later edit]

That which is physiological follows physical laws. {Eg. humans require some Vitamin C to avoid scurvy.}

That which is mathematical follows mathematical laws.

Humans must have a healthy functioning physiological brain before human intellects can function. The brain is a necessary instrument for the proper functioning of the intellect?

Question: Are intellectual operations are nothing but material products of the brain.

To scientifically explore this question we need to understand the structure of our intellect as well as the structure of our brain. If we make mistakes in evaluating the nature of our intellect, our conclusions about our nature as human beings will be at risk.

It is unscientific for humans to ignore something as important as our human intellect. Our human intellect includes our human ability to comprehend abstract ideas, our ability to make true-false judgments, our ability to reason and our ability to distinguish between sound and unsound reasoning, Our human intellect is a precursor to our ability to make intellectual choices. These talents are very important.

Plusroot theory proceeds under the assumption that our intellect is a limited but real talent we humans possess that is of great benefit if used well.

When foreign substances, such as amyloids, form in the human brain and affect the proper function of the synapses people lose their memory and ability to exercise intellectual talents. This is a disease. To find a cure for this disease, scientists use their intellect to discover ways to control the amyloid formation in the brain and thus avoid the destruction they cause. A human cannot prevent this devastation through pure will power but through the use of reason we can hope to find a cure.

Insofar as we humans can use our intellect to discover physiological laws, we can intellectually use the principles to discover to make limited but useful predictions and apply conclusions so as to modify our environment and sometimes cure disease. In this manner our intellectual powers enable us, in varying degrees, to step beyond the deterministic inexorability of physiological laws. Humans do not exercise rational control by change the laws of physics and biology to suit our pleasure. Instead, we discover the laws of physics and biology and intelligently arrange our lives to follow the laws. Our ability to reason well is a fantastic gift.

How do we study the science of the human intellect?

Plusroot answer.

We can learn about our intellect from inner experience and outer effect.

Like any science, we start with inner self conscious experience and then find ways of confirming inner experience with repeatable tests that can be confirmed by other people.

Science and technology are social projects that move forward relying on individual input.

Using physical sciences mankind has performed wonders. Watching an airplane fly overhead is direct experience of a technological marvel. In our human way of thinking, most of us generalize that this is proof of extraordinary accomplishment of human endeavor using physical science and technology. [I should extrapolate more on this example.

Airplanes did not happen quickly in the human story. Humans lived on the earth many centuries before airplanes were built.

These are the eight parts of Plusroot Theory. These parts are an arbitrary division that could be contracted to four or expanded to hundreds. Plusroot starts with8 divisions for the sake of simplicity in discussing an elementary presentation. More advanced studiesbecome more complex.

To examine our intellectual talents we must consciously use our intellectual talents. Before we can deliberately use our intellect to examine our intellect we must already have a well developed language that utilizes well-formed intellectual theories that are presupposed within the language being used. [That is an awkward sentence but it is an important idea. That is to say, before we humans can discuss a scientific theory concerning our intellect, we must first have an adequately functioning theory of the intellect already in place.

Plus Tenet: The medieval discourses on the nature of logical ethics were a necessary prerequisite for the existence of modern science. This is why we did not see modern science develop in the orient even though oriental civilization reached splendid heights in culture and discovery. The same for Egypt, India, etc. The medieval discourses in logical ethics were remarkable because they slowly clarified an understanding of the distinctions between and among concepts, definitions, judgments, deductions, fair play, human nature, dialog, priorities and application. At the same time, they distinguished between the biological process of sensation, emotion, image formation, the physical aspects of words, the physical triggering effects of words and the operations of the intellect already discussed. The medieval development in logic and epistemology is difficult for us to follow because numerous misconceptions and appalling ignorance rivet our attention and seem so dominant that we fail to notice genuine science developing step by step. Once we learn to see it, it is clear that modern science is the flower of scholastic logic. If we loose this foundation we are in danger of turning modern science into a tool that could easily be used against the benefit of mankind.

What do I mean by logical ethics? Well formed logical ethics teaches us what we should do in using our logical gifts. Logical ethics tells us what is proper. It is not a mere description of what we do. Logical ethics studies logical values.

One logical value we study in logical ethics is that we should reason well. We should keep our deductions as sound as is feasible considering our limited nature. We should seek the truth as best we can. We should make a concerted effort to speak the truth with one another. We should play fair. When we look at our intellectual gifts in this manner and we are honest about it, we recognize that it take courage to pursue intellectual honesty.

Why am I Catholic [\ScienceLogicEthics;

I will jump ahead of myself because people are curious about why I am Catholic if I am so concerned with intellectual honesty. My answer is that underneath the apparent crust of comfortable conformity and the look of superstition in the behavior of many Catholics, there is a genuine search for truth in the Catholic Church that is more real than I can find any place else -- although I think all legitimate religions have some ‘search for truth’ in their make up somewhere.

Inthe Catholic Church an exalted view of Truth can be found in abundance. "God is spirit, and they who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." [John 4:23-24]

A theme runs through Catholic literature that Truth in its fullness and God in His essence are in some manner one and the same. This theme began in the Old Testament and continued in the New. Ethical, rational religion is human acknowledgement of the wonder of Truth and a respect for the gift of reason that makes it possible for us to seek Truth. The Catholic church teaches that God is Truth as do most Protestant Christians. The Catholic Church also teaches that God is a self, a conscious loving being who cares for human beings and invites humans to embrace a life of loving God with the promise that God embraces their love and rewards their faith. As we love Truth, we love God and as we love God we love Truth. This theme is also important in Jewish religion. Often this theme is not articulated but is assumed. You can tell the assumption is there by other clues.

The Catholic Church often strays from its basic function of teaching that ‘God is Truth’ and sometimes wavers in its responsibility to encouraging humans to seek the Truth honestly through the use of right reason. The straying away from these obligation has been so well documented that many critics hold that the straying is the essence of Catholicism. But that puts the issue backwards. The straying is the sinning that occurs within the Church when members act against the ideals they theoretically profess.

The essence of the Catholic Church is the part that genuinely seeks Truth and loves Beauty and pursues justice and works for the good of mankind and works hard to learn the difference between fair play and foul fighting. This applies to Jew, Catholic, Protestant and many other religions of mankind.

The truth-loving, affirmative rational part of religion I see as the heart and soul of the Catholic Church. Once we learn to see it, it shines with its own clarity and beauty.

There was one Judas among the twelve apostles. That one Judas caused a lot of trouble. Metaphorically speaking, there is a Judas inclination in each person. This manifest itself as the Judas in the Church. It still causes trouble and it will continue to do so. But there are the Eleven. Eleven is ten more than one. It is slightly over Ten to One and that is a lot. If we who want to be among the Eleven would spend more time showing the world the glories produced by the faithful it would not be so hard for me to explain why I am Catholic. It takes the life time of Eleven faithful members to counteract a few moments of betrayal by one Judas.

The problem is that there is a little Judas in all of us. When I say “eleven”, I am speaking metaphorically. It would be more accurate to say the eleventh part of the church is faithful but we continuously undo ourselves by giving into the Judas part. There is a lot of Christian literature about Judas because we humans understand him so well.

We rely on the Eleven, but not a one of the original Eleven was perfect. And so it is with all Christians today, especially me.

Graphic

graph·ic (gr²f“¹k) also graph·i·cal (-¹-k…l) adj. 1.a. Of or relating to written representation. b. Of or relating to pictorial representation. 2. Of, relating to, or represented by or as if by a graph. 3.a. Described in vivid detail. b. Clearly outlined or set forth. 4. Of or relating to the graphic arts. 5. Of or relating to graphics. 6. Geology. Having crystals resembling printed characters. --graph·ic n. 1. A work of graphic art. 2. A pictorial device used for illustration, as in a lecture. 3. A graphic display generated by a computer or an imaging device. [Latin graphicus, from Greek graphikos, from graph¶, writing, from graphein, to write. See gerbh- below.] --graph“i·cal·ly adv.--graph“ic·ness n.

SYNONYMS: graphic, lifelike, realistic, vivid. The central meaning shared by these adjectives is “strikingly sharp and accurate”: a graphic account of the battle; a lifelike portrait; a realistic description; a vivid recollection of the accident.

Emotion

e·mo·tion (¹-m½“sh…n) n. 1. An intense mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a strong feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love. 2. A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See Synonyms at feeling. 3. The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility:“The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect” (Isaac Bashevis Singer). [French émotion, from Old French esmovoir, to excite, from Vulgar Latin *exmov¶re : Latin ex-, ex- + Latin mov¶re, to move; see meu…- below.] … Important derivatives are: mob, mobile, moment, momentous, momentum, motif, motion, motive, motor, move, movement, commotion, emotion, promote, remote, remove.No Thesaurus entry for: "Emotion"

Emotional

e·mo·tion·al (¹-m½“sh…-n…l)adj. 1. Of or relating to emotion: an emotional illness; emotional crises. 2. Readily affected with or stirred by emotion: an emotional person who often weeps. 3. Arousing or intended to arouse the emotions: an emotional appeal. 4. Marked by or exhibiting emotion: an emotional farewell.--e·mo”tion·al“i·ty (-sh…-n²l“¹-t¶) n.--e·mo“tion·al·ly adv.

Juxtapose, Juxtaposed, Juxtaposing

add 2010jun27

jux·ta·pose (j¾k”st…-p½z“) tr.v. jux·ta·posed, jux·ta·pos·ing, jux·ta·pos·es. To place side by side, especially for comparison or contrast. [French juxtaposer : Latin iuxt³, close by; see yeug- below + French poser, to place (from Old French; see POSE1).]

[gin note: This is a good example of what I means by MatFuzz fallacy. It seriously squanders the terms conceive and image to write 'conceiving mental images'. It is like writing about a square circle. Anyone who could make such a plunder is profoundly ignorant of balanced classical rational theory.[Poised Rationality]

Objectify, Objectification

ob·jec·ti·fy (…b-jµk“t…-fº”) tr.v. ob·jec·ti·fied, ob·jec·ti·fy·ing, ob·jec·ti·fies. 1. To present (something or someone) as an object; depersonalize: “Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally” (Barry Lopez). a. To make objective. 2. To impart reality to; make objective; externalize. --ob·jec”ti·fi·ca“tion (-f¹-k³“sh…n) n.--ob·jec“ti·fi”er n.